I am not offended (nor do I endorse offensiveness as an explanation for proscribing or prescribing anything).

I am not trying to say that Jim or anyone is doing something objectively wrong, or is personally sexist. So please don’t feel attacked by me.

I am simply trying to locate this message. That depictions of female politicians often fit a pattern, and this pattern is supported by naturalised inequality between genders, and it positions people’s understanding of the world in a way that can be described as sexist.

Yes – male politicians can be mocked for their appearances too. But this usually occurs without denigration of their agency, not does it happen with such regularity, nor such obsessive and detailed attention.

For example: Here are dozens of women’s perspectives on media coverage of Michele Bachmann’s fingernails:

I couldn’t agree w u more. She looks fine to me.
But then I fall into a confused heap trying to arrange pillows on a couch or bed so what do I know about being gay sheik.

I didn’t lose my gay card, I got snidely refused every time I applied.

]]>By: Neilhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37951/comment-page-1#comment-108962
Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:36:24 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=37951#comment-108962All debating about sexism aside, I can’t help but find that outfit funny especially since it was chosen for her by her husband. I just can’t take my mind off the impression the picture gives me that Bachmann’s up there sharing the platform with L.Ron Hubbard. It helps that I already have an impression of Bachmann as generally divorced from reality.
]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37951/comment-page-1#comment-108945
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:00:06 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=37951#comment-108945fannie,

If a comment sits there for a while before I edit it, I do so notate. If it’s there for only a few moments I don’t.

But thanks for the advice.

Have a nice weekend.

]]>By: fanniehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37951/comment-page-1#comment-108943
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:35:26 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=37951#comment-108943Tim, you have edited your comment here while I was in the midst of replying to it as you had originally written it.

Perhaps when you edit comments after you post them you can make a note such as [Edited to add….] or something?

I didn’t conflate your statements with Jim’s. Not sure what you’re talking about.

I referenced your earlier post because it is relevant to this conversation.

Your post noted that anti-gay people often view gay people as mean villains. My point was that if anti-gay people read Jim’s post, I would predict that it would further cement the notion that gay people are mean villains (and reinforce the stereotype that gay men are sexist and woman-hating).

Yeah, Jim’s post is a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but when we add up the collective, petty, aggressive snarking on anti-gay people (especially women) that occurs on popular gay blogs, why wouldn’t anti-gay people see us as mean villains?

Regarding the post’s offensiveness to gay men, I’m not sure what the utility is of declaring that it’s “more offensive” to gay men than to women. When you rank it, without ever acknowledging that women have good reason to find the post sexist, it reeks of the same trivializing of women’s concerns here. (Although yes, I would agree that it seems offensive to gay men, because of the stereotype).

Jim and I are not the same person. Please don’t conflate our statements.

How might posts like these, no matter how “harmless” you might intend them to be, feed into the larger narrative that it’s anti-gays who are “under constant attack” from gay people?

That is a good point. Entirely unrelated to your assertions of sexism, but a good point nonetheless.

]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37951/comment-page-1#comment-108937
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:47:03 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=37951#comment-108937Ironically, this comment should be more offensive to gay men than women.

Those crying sexism note that it suggests that Michele Bachmann’s outfit is unbecoming. And because Bachamann is female and because female politicians face higher standards, they determine it to be a sexist comment.

But it should be noted that the sexism they identify is based on social inequalities of expectation, not anything inherent to this particular situation. It is, at worst, an indirect sexism.

The ‘gay male’ component, however, is blatant and obvious. It is based on a non-flattering stereotype (gay men are obsessed with fashion and thus frivolous) and is stated in a way that insists this is a characteristic of all gay men.

And while it may be factual that Bachmann’s attire is not becoming or stylish (I, alas, have no idea), the gay male stereotype upon which the humor lies is a false one.

An yet no gay men got their undies in a bunch about it.

How odd. Someone call GLAAD.

]]>By: fanniehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37951/comment-page-1#comment-108936
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:45:00 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=37951#comment-108936Well, I’ve certainly never seen you use the term “misandry” on this blog, that’s why it looked to me like maybe you had just discovered the term.

The initial post, to me, wasn’t a big huge deal (there are worse, more sexist ways to treat Bachmann) and it could have easily been rectified with a simple, “Sorry, I messed up.”

Yet, you had to keep digging by continuing to defend your post, not listening to the criticisms being made, accusing your critics of being overly-PC ruiners of all the “harmless” fun you’re apparently having, and insisting that it’s not you who’s been sexist, but your critics who’ve been “misandrist.”

So I’ll reiterate.

Chalk this up as everyone else’s problem that we just need to get over, but also know that posts like these, and especially your subsequent defenses of them, are incredibly alienating to a lot of people.

These petty posts also “prove” to anti-gay people that gay people are actually the villains they think we are. A couple days ago, Tim posted about the act of vandalism aimed at Peter LaBarbera. How might posts like these, no matter how “harmless” you might intend them to be, feed into the larger narrative that it’s anti-gays who are “under constant attack” from gay people?

Yeah, maybe it feels good to you to vent and mock a woman’s outfit. But aren’t we supposed to be the side of tolerance and civilty?

For starters, it’s “misandry” not “mysandry.” It’s always interesting to see how people use that word when they first discover it.

Nice snark. No, I didn’t discover it for the first time, and as far as how I used it, I used it correctly. But as many like to point out on a regular basis, my spelling sucks. Poke at that, if you must, but the argument is still there.

You can keep your non-apology apology, Jim. You’ve made it abundantly clear that the feelings of gay people (gay men?) are the only feelings that matter and everyone else’s complaints are just Political Correctness Gone Awry.